RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1262, 6 November 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Wednesday,- Nov. 5, 1884. [Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., R,M.] ■ OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE. William Bryant was charged, under the by-laws, with making use of offensive language in the public street. The defendant, who pleaded gailty, was fined 10s, and costs 12s. civil cases. ; . Judgment by default for the amount and costs «vas given in the following case s : —Siegert and Fauvel v. Patrick Nolan, claim £sl 15a 4d ; W. Storey v. J. Warren, claim £ ; Job Brown v. Thos. Housely, claim £2 5s fid. Sundry Maoris v. Ackroyd and Quinn —Claim £4O. Mr Raymond (White and Smithson) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Haraersley for defendants. In this case it was alleged that the defendants were tenants of the plaintiffs, and that during the tenancy buildings, fences, etc., were removed off the land, which were valued at £4O. George Kahu : The agreement produced is that which exists between the natives and defendants. "The objection was raised that the agreement was not sufficiently stamped. Mr Raymond said it was only an agreement, and it was sufficiently stamped. It was decided that it was not sufficiently stamped, and the plaintiffs agreed to pay the fine, j Witness continued : There were on the land two big sheds, 30ft long, worth £8 (more or less), a sheep yard worth £5, cattle yards worth £6, and 40 chains of fence (more or less) worth about £2O. There was also some timber worth about £5, and a butcher’s block worth £2 10s. I saw them there when Quinn and Ackroyd took possession, but they have since gone. Cress-examined : I saw the sheep yards towards the end of last winter. They were there when Ackroyd and Quinn took possession. It is two years and three months since the pig yard was made. The cattle yard was gone. I do not know who took it away. Leach brought the timber there, and it was heaped on the ground. The defendants cut the fences in some parts. Leach cut some of the tences the year before Ackroyd cut them. I am quite sure my wife did not take any wire. 1 have no wire about my house. To Mr Raymond : I never had any complaint made to me about Maoris removing any of the fences, William McCann : I know the land lin question. T was in occupation of it 'about three months before Ackroyd and Quinn. There were several yards and buildings on it, and a fence of posts and wire worth about 15a to 18s per chain. I One pig yard was worth £5 nr £fi, and I the other about £4. Could not say what the butcher’s block was worth. Tiie stock yard was a strong, good yard, and worth about £8 or £9. There was some loose timber, but I could not say how much cr what its value was. To Mr Hamersley : The Maoris live close by. Did not know whether the tilings were removed between his forcible ejection and the defendants’ entering into possession. Three Maoris, named Albert Leonard, Solomon, and Harry Kahu, gave corroborative evidence. Mr Haraersley asked for a nonsuit on tiie ground that the plaintiffs bad not a title to the laud, and that they were consequently not entitled to what they claimed. Mr Raymond replied that it was not a question of title, and quoted from a wel'-established authority to show that a tenant had no right to dispute the title of a landlord. The agreement was signed by defendants, and they were bound by it. After a long discussion the point was reserved, and the case proceeded. Geo. Bolton stated that it was three or four weeks from the time McCann was ejected before Ackroyd and Qninn took possession of it. Some things had gone from the place, but so far as he knew they tvere not taken by Ackroyd and Quinu, The stockyard was in the same way now as it was then. The pig sheds were damaged, but they were dilapidated when Ackroyd and Quinn took possession. He did not know anything about the fence*

To Mr Raymond : We (trustees in Leanh’s estate 1 ) ha.i sold the lease to Ackroyd and Quinn before we ejected McCann, but it was seven or eight days before they put any the cat tie on it. The Maoris never had possession. I know some things are gone, but I do not know what became of them. William Ackroyd : I am one of the defendants. . We bought the lease from the trustees. We have not removed the weight of a grain off the lands. We have improved the property by trimming the fences.

To Mr Raymond : The fence is gone, but I cannot say what become of it. The big sheds are gone with the exception of some planks, but I do not know anything about them. I had nothing to do with the things. I took no interest in them. We had only the grazing of the place and did not look after anything else. Michael Qumn gave similar evidence, but said they had removed a part of a yard and added it on to another, which had the effect of making an improvement. Cope (Maori) said he had been engaged looking after the land for Ackroyd and Quinn. Witness took some of the fences for his own use. Other Maoris also took some of the fences. He saw Frank Fowler take some. The fences were no good. Old Tommy gave him leave to remove a house for Kuri. He burned the stockyard. It was a nuisance. He chopped it up for firewood. The sheep yards had been mended and were better now than before. To Mr Raymond : Ackroyd and Quinn knew nothing at all about it. I removed the fence and two or three more whilst in possession of the land on behalf of Ackroyd and Quinn. George Bolton, recalled, stated the agreement put in was not the one under which they had sold the lease of the laud to Ackroyd and Quinn. They sold the lease held bv David Leach. The agreement was made subsequently, because the Maoris were grumbling and saying the buildings would be removed off the land. For the defence, I). Leach’s lease, which wns bought by the defendants from the trustees in the estate, was put

in. Mr Raymond held that this could not be taken as evidence, as there was no assignment of the lease. His Worship said that the defendants claimed that they were in possession under the lease, and that the agreement was onlv an addition.

Mr Eaymond contended that there was no written evidence of an assignment of the lease, and that the only document which hound the parties as regarded the tenancy was the agreement put in by the plaintiffs. There was no evidence whatever that the lease had been assigned. Eis Worship said‘ there was more than one reason why the plaintiffs should not recover. The defendants bought the lease and got possession under it, and the agreement was only a farther explanation of it. It would be a great stretch of authority on the part of the Court to sav that under that the defendants were liable. I‘he case was nonsuited with costs.

Peter Bannatyne v. Jones and Philps —Claim £l9 4s.

Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Eaymond for defendants. Peter Bannatyne : I was engaged by Smith to work for Jones and Philps. I was engaged at Ss per day. Smith told me I would have to work for Jones and Philps. Philps promised to pay, and said Smith bad got the money to pay all hands.

To Mr Raymond : Last Monday week Pbilps said be would pay me, Philps told me Smith was not a subcontractor, and Smith told me so several times. I looked on Smith as foreman, but I looked on Philps and Jones as responsible for the money, Tbe defence was that Smith was a sub-contractor, and responsible for tbe money. T. R. Jones put in an agreement in writing to prove that Smith was a subcontractor. Never authorised Smith to employ Bannatyne, and never spoke to him on the work. The contract was given up by Smith, He bad over-paid Smith by £4l 19s. The defendant asked him for payment. To Mr Aspinall : Never had anything to do with plaintiff. Smith accounted for tbe money. W e paid some of the other men. We paid Caleb Bateman £lO, because we did not like to have any bother about it. To the Court : He bad not paid Bateman at Smith’s request nor did be charge Smith with it. James Philp, one of the defendants : Smith was a sub-contractor. Never promised to pay Bannatyne. Bateman was engaged by Smith. Never exercised any control over tbe men. Smith had given up the contract before Bateman was paid. To Mr Aspinall ; Bannatyne spoke to me some day last week about his wages, I did not tell plaintiff if he came over to Temuka for a cheque I would pay him, James Smith stated that he took the labor on the bridge and employed Bannatyne. The contract would not pay. At the time tbe contract was given up only ±-7 4s 9d was due to Bannatyne. 'He gave Mr Pbilps Bate, man’s times, but he was not sure whether he asked him to pay him or not. The rate he was paying Bannatyne was 7s per day. He told Bannaiyne he would pay him £7 10s. lo Mr Raymond : Never had a squaring up with Bannatyne, His Worship said there was no use in saying anything more about it. The dismissed^with’costs.j

W. R. tjprichard v. R. Fenton — Ciaim £1 Ip.

Tim plaintiff said that on or about the 26th of April, 1883, he was instructed by the defendant to go round to get signatures for a transfer of license and he considered a guinea for it little

enough. Mr Wills said he heard of some difficulty about getting signatures and advised them to go to Mr CTprichard. Robert Fenton, sworn, said he gave no authority to Lye to employ anyone to get signatures. His Worship : You can’t get judgment for this, Mr UpiicharJ, Case nonsuited with costs. The Court then adjourned.

GERALDINE,

Wednesday, November 5,1884.

[Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., L.M., Dr Fish and Rev. Gr. Bari; y, J.P.’s.) CIVIL CASES.

Dunlop v. Jones —Claim LI Os 6d, balance of account.

After taking the evidence of N. Dunlop, lately a partner in the firm of Morrison and Dunlop, and their storemao, J. W.-Pye, judgment was given for defendant. P. Goorgeson v. Macintyre.—Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. RAPE. Thomas Parkes was charged with having committed the above offence on Hannah Bowman, aged 13 years, at Woodbury last Sunday. Inspector Broham prosecuted. The evidence is of course unfit for publication in detail. It was to the effect that the prosecutrix, who was a servant in the employment of Mr Middlemass at Woodbury, was left iu charge of the house last Sunday while her master and mistress were at church. There was no one there excepting herself and a baby when accused came, and committed the offence. Besides the evidence of the little girl herself. Mrs Middlemass, Dr. Fish and Constable Willoughby were examined. The accused said he was drunk and did not know what'he was doing. He was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court in Timaru.